"Many of the Natives weren't exactly gentle and loving toward one another before Europeans started showing up. Warfare and persecution between tribes and nations was common enough."

You mean Indians were just as human as other folks!?

"For example, the Sioux bitterly complained about the fact that Whites used violence and deception to take the Black Hills from them. (Which was wrong). However, the fact still stands, they brutally drove out the people who were there before them too."

"Many of the Natives weren't exactly gentle and loving toward one another before Europeans started showing up. Warfare and persecution between tribes and nations was common enough."

You mean Indians were just as human as other folks!?

"For example, the Sioux bitterly complained about the fact that Whites used violence and deception to take the Black Hills from them. (Which was wrong). However, the fact still stands, they brutally drove out the people who were there before them too."

But they didn't attempt to exterminate them..............

No need to get defensive. I was just pointing out, there's a somewhat popular, simplified narrative that likes to act as if it was all sunshine and flowers here until the bad people -- Euro-Christians -- showed up and ruined everything.

Real history tends to be far more complicated and messy.

They didn't really have the means to exterminate them. Had they had them -- who knows?

European disease (either purely accidental, or at times, on purpose -- such as blankets infected with small pox) is what really did the Natives in.

In military terms, they actually tended to do quite well against Whites. The Nez Perce who surrended with Chief Joseph did so more out of sheer exaustion -- rather than actual military defeat. Tactically, they had won practically every engagment they had fought with the Army.

Not to mention, Colonial Americans scored well against British regulars in many fights, using tactics they had learned from the Natives.

When talking about the conquest of North America it is important to remember that all the estimates I read give it about 90% of the native population died because of the new diseases introduced into the environment. 90% is Tremendous! Most of these 90% died having never seen a white person because the disease traveled to them before a white person could ever get there.

This is not just true in North America, you can find it in the South Pacific and South America. Just the majority of the population dying off. At this point the people comming from Europe were already more or less immune to the plague and poxes because earlier in their history the plaques and poxes killed about 1/3 of thier population.

I think the wars and killings between the whites and the indians were sometimes justified and sometiems not. I think there was probably no coexistance possible with the Comanches. Not just for white people but for noncomanches too. The unjustified aspect is that there were tribes and peoples that you could coexist with but there was a tendancy to see all native americans the same and to treat them the same.

I think if you reversed it and had native americans traveling across the ocean to europe you probably woudl end up with a similar story of conquest.

When talking about the conquest of North America it is important to remember that all the estimates I read give it about 90% of the native population died because of the new diseases introduced into the environment. 90% is Tremendous! Most of these 90% died having never seen a white person because the disease traveled to them before a white person could ever get there.

This is not just true in North America, you can find it in the South Pacific and South America. Just the majority of the population dying off. At this point the people comming from Europe were already more or less immune to the plague and poxes because earlier in their history the plaques and poxes killed about 1/3 of thier population.

I think the wars and killings between the whites and the indians were sometimes justified and sometiems not. I think there was probably no coexistance possible with the Comanches. Not just for white people but for noncomanches too. The unjustified aspect is that there were tribes and peoples that you could coexist with but there was a tendancy to see all native americans the same and to treat them the same.

I think if you reversed it and had native americans traveling across the ocean to europe you probably woudl end up with a similar story of conquest.

Everywhere was stolen from somebody at some point. Once we migrated out of the cradle of Humanity in Africa and started dispersing around the globe, one of the first things we started to do was steal territory from one another.

It's still going on.

Yes, the land I live on was stolen from Native American Indian tribes, who in turn, had driven off earlier paleo-Indian people.

Now, the culture of "my people" so to speak -- the Western American culture -- is several generations deep.

But we are being driven off, and our culture and ways going away -- in the face of subdivisions, trophy homes, urban/suburban sprawl and good-paying jobs being replaced by minimum-wage servant class jobs tied to toursim or catering to the whims of the well-to-do who moved out here for the good life on five acres that used to be part of a hardworking family's ranch.

...Having said that, it is agreed that, "modern America" was founded by Christians in most parts.

And as our society matured we got away from those so called "christian" concepts such as killing off the natives and enslaving others just because they were of a different color. That would seem to be true for many countries; their advancements are best described as moving away from the "morals" of an outdated religion.

>>>>>>>>> I do not know everything about Christianity but I think these two things have more to do with European culture than what Christianity stands for. It is still difficult for many European Christians to imagine Jesus was a Jew from Palestine/Israel.

It is very likly Jesus looked close to people of that area than a person from Norway.

Similar things have taken place in Saudi Arabia as well. SOME of the laws are still influenced by pre-Islamic tribal norms. Saudi men will not "Allow" a non-Saudi or non-Arab to marry a Saudi woman. Albeit Islam clearly said racism is NOT supported by Islam. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said it clearly over 1400 years ago.

It is hard to imagine what Muhammad said 1400 years ago and how cultural influence takes people away from the "The path". He said....

...O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.....

............All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action............................Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves...............

Everywhere was stolen from somebody at some point. Once we migrated out of the cradle of Humanity in Africa and started dispersing around the globe, one of the first things we started to do was steal territory from one another.

It's still going on.

Yes, the land I live on was stolen from Native American Indian tribes, who in turn, had driven off earlier paleo-Indian people.

Now, the culture of "my people" so to speak -- the Western American culture -- is several generations deep.

But we are being driven off, and our culture and ways going away -- in the face of subdivisions, trophy homes, urban/suburban sprawl and good-paying jobs being replaced by minimum-wage servant class jobs tied to toursim or catering to the whims of the well-to-do who moved out here for the good life on five acres that used to be part of a hardworking family's ranch.

Some call it "The New West."

We call it "Californication."

And thus, life goes on...

Life does go on. I think what we might point to is that maybe just more than 100 years ago this idea of conquring was not something to be ashamed of, not something to have any guilt over. This is true all around the world. Only recently we have this conciousness that it is an ugly and shamefull thing. Before that it was understood you expanded your empire if you could. The christian concept in many places around the globe was a bit different than say the mogules or some other groups because they really were able to tell themselves they were bringing a superior way of life and more prosperity to these peoples. We scoff at that but honestly european culture had evolved at that point to be able to cross the ocean and have more modern ammenities. Sort of like the Romans they came to bring a better way of life. Now we can step back and appreciate that the european ways were not always superior but to the european it would have appeared to be.

Mytmouse, you are correct, the Plains People definitely gave a good accounting of themselves.

I believe Red Cloud was the first to actually defeat the United States Army, but I could be wrong on that.

Indians have participated in every conflict the United States has engaged in. Sometimes on both sides: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Red Stick War, the Civil War, the Plains Wars, the Apache Wars. General Grant's adujant who wrote the first surrender terms was a Seneca indian named Ely Parker, while the last Confederate gengeral to lay down arms was Stand Watie, the leader of the First Cherokee Mounted Rifles.

Indeed, history isn't simple or clean.

P.S., did you know that the original Code Talkers served in World War 1? They were Choctaw.